"He was made in the likeness of Man.". If the Divinity of Chrift be fubftantiated, I need not dwell much longer on the Doctrine connected with it. The equality of the Son with the Father, ftands exprefsly declared in Philipp. ii, 6: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Upon the memorable directions given by our Lord to his Difciples on his Afcenfion, I will reft the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity: "Go ye, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft.* Now this is the form of Baptism they were to use, even among the Gentiles. As the Heathen were given to Idolatry, nothing would be more guarded againft, than the use of any unneceffary expreffion which might authorize them to retain their notion of a plurality of Gods. But could any form be contrived that would more effectually teach them, that they were to pay as much honor, and devote themselves as cordially to the Son, as to the Father; and to the Holy Ghost,as to either; and that, therefore, they must either be three perfons in one God, or three diftinct Gods. Nothing can be more abfurd than the attempt which has been made by Socinian Writers, to difqualify this text from fupporting the Trinitarian Doctrine, which is fo clearly proved by the fair and natural interpretation of it; and you prudently declined noticing it. If the Son were no more than a Servant, and the Holy Ghost only the power of God, the paffage is truly ridiculous and unintelligible. If any diftinct idea can be conveyed by language, we cannot but understand, that we are as much baptized in the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghoft, as we are in the name of the Father. And if it be an act of worship and dedication, as it undeniably is, the Son and Holy Ghoft are as truly objects of worship as the Father. In this light the primitive Chriftians viewed it. And when early Heretics begun to oppofe the coeffentiality of the Son of God, we find them departing from this form of found words in their baptifm. By being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I declare my belief in each of these persons; my relation to each in their respective characters and offices; and my dedication of myself to them equally and alike. And in doing this I acknowledge the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, to be three perfons in one fupreme Deity. I come to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. The refult of the whole is this: decla rations and exhibitions are given in Scripture of Jefus Chrift, fome of which make him human, fome divine, fome God and Man in one Chrift. Your fyftem argues, (with as much propriety as I fhould infer that Man has no Soul, after reading a Treatise upon Anatomy,) Christ is Man, therefore he is not God; yet you cannot fhew us, that fuch a confequence is neceffary in the nature of things, and that therefore he cannot poffibly be God as well as Man. We acknowledge him as he is revealed, the incarnate God; the Son of the Virgin Mary, and the Son of God; who "is before all things, was in the beginning with God, and is God." For this belief we have as fatisfactory evidence as we could wifh. I affure my readers, I have not produced even a fpecimen of several kinds of argument and proof still adducible in support of this most important truth. I truft enough is brought forward to fhew that we are not worfhipping a Creature, inftead of our Creator; that in "honoring the Son even as we honor the Father," we afcribe to him only the glory due to his name: And that if we venture the falvation of our Souls on the atonement he has made for Sin, and the prevailing efficacy of his interceffion, we are not fo likely to "bring up, on ourselves swift deftruction," as thofe "who deny the Lord that bought them," and treat as a worm of earth Him, who in Heaven is thought "worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and bleffing." LETTER III. YOUR fixth Letter, on the Satisfaction of Christ, begins with informing us, "that there are no fuch phrafes in Scripture as, the fatis"faction of Chrift; or, that Chrift died to fatisfy "Divine Juftice; or, that he paid the Debt "due to Sin for us; or, that he died in our ❝ftead; or, that he by his sufferings, reconciled "an angry God, to his offending Creatures;" and you repeat with an air of triumph, "there "are no fuch words to be found in the New "Teftament." You tell us further, that "upon "examining the many texts cited in proof of "this Doctrine, you find that they neither "speak the fame language, nor the fame fenti"ments." You decline entering into a minute examination of fuch texts as the following: "Chrift died for us ;" "was facrificed for us; "bore our fins in his own Body on the Tree;" "was made Sin for us ;" "ye are bought with a price," &c. &c. as it would lead you far beyond your defign; fo you dispatch them in the lump, with this general fentence of annihilation: 66 they are in a great measure figurative, "and are borrowed from the ceremonial law "of the Jews, or from the Jewish Scriptures."* If, because such phrases as "the Satisfaction of Chrift," &c. do not occur in the word of God, the idea meant to be conveyed by the writers who have used them, (and who have been compelled by corrupters of God's word to use them, in order to ftate and define what they conceive to be the true meaning of Scripture paffages) cannot therefore be fcriptural, it would follow that we must not express a Scriptural idea, but in fcriptural language, and all explication and comment are improper. That it is "far from your defign to enter into a minute examination" of the texts you have quoted, or even into any examination at all, I do not wonder. But, excufe me if I endeavour to afcertain the proper meaning of thefe and a few more, which you have probably overlooked. That feveral of them are figurative, and that many of them refpect the Jewish Sacrifices and Ceremonies, I fully concede; but that there *Page 74. |